Discussion:
It seems I'm not the first one here to discover duke's ignorance of physics
(too old to reply)
Teresita
2018-01-20 13:45:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
Ted
2018-01-20 13:48:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 15:56:27 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
===========================================================
Fucking hysterical, right duke32? Sorry, I meant 'duke lebourgeois'?
Erm, "Earl Weber"?
There are more where that came from. Would you like another trip
down memory lane?
Or two?
Let's have a whole bunch of them!
I was reading threads from back in 2001, which was apparently after he'd
already doxxed the innocent children of some of the others in the group.
Why would parents publish such information on the internet? That sounds like
where the doxxing took place.
What was your purpose in digging up such information
about your enemies' children and bringing it to usenet?
I didn't "look" it up. The dummy enemies posted it for all to see.
You mean, they posted links to web pages about their kids
to the ng, and said 'go to this site and see my kids' ?!?
Themselves and the kids nicknames only. And a couple of somewhat shady issues.
.> >You lost your account over links that others posted?
.> Nope, because I was a good Catholic telling truth to Catholic bashers.
Not even trying to hide the lies: no one loses an account for anything
like that.
So you didn't know that, early on, Compuserve was so strict that monitors would
threaten you for even hinting at bad word or thought in discussion. They
required the most purest of discussions or you were kicked off.
Nice try. Nobody is talking about Compuserve, that's
just your attempt at diversion.
Poor child. Just wasn't around then in those "innocent" days.
IIRC, you were kicked off SBC. Did they have a rule in
their TOS that "a good Catholic telling truth to Catholic
bashers is STRICTLY PROHIBITED"? Or are you lying on the
newsgroup again.
No, but they did that.
Then what did SBC close your account for? Did they not
tell you?
Yes, I was disturbing to the poor fallen away Catholics. Revealed previously.
You see what truth does. I never have to worry abut
what I said because I never change my stories in lies like you do.
Yes you did change your stories. For example you claimed
you were an engineer, then you said you never claimed you
were an engineer, and now you claim you're an engineer
again.
No lying. Revealed previously.
the dukester, American-American
Yes, you lied.
duke
2018-01-21 14:56:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Yes you did change your stories. For example you claimed
you were an engineer, then you said you never claimed you
were an engineer, and now you claim you're an engineer
again.
No lying. Revealed previously.
Yes, you lied.
For 45 years, dummy kid.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Peter Pan
2018-01-21 19:08:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Yes you did change your stories. For example you claimed
you were an engineer, then you said you never claimed you
were an engineer, and now you claim you're an engineer
again.
No lying. Revealed previously.
Yes, you lied.
For 45 years, dummy kid.
Does that confession make your soul feel better?
Ted
2018-01-21 23:10:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Yes you did change your stories. For example you claimed
you were an engineer, then you said you never claimed you
were an engineer, and now you claim you're an engineer
again.
No lying. Revealed previously.
Yes, you lied.
For 45 years, dummy kid.
Does that confession make your soul feel better?
He's probably lying. I suspect he's lied for longer than just 45 years.
Peter Pan
2018-01-22 07:28:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Yes you did change your stories. For example you claimed
you were an engineer, then you said you never claimed you
were an engineer, and now you claim you're an engineer
again.
No lying. Revealed previously.
Yes, you lied.
For 45 years, dummy kid.
Does that confession make your soul feel better?
He's probably lying. I suspect he's lied for longer than just 45 years.
Indeed, duke was born nose first.
duke
2018-01-22 12:45:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Ted
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Yes you did change your stories. For example you claimed
you were an engineer, then you said you never claimed you
were an engineer, and now you claim you're an engineer
again.
No lying. Revealed previously.
Yes, you lied.
For 45 years, dummy kid.
Does that confession make your soul feel better?
He's probably lying. I suspect he's lied for longer than just 45 years.
Indeed, duke was born nose first.
What a shame that the adults let the kiddies take over.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
duke
2018-01-22 12:43:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Yes you did change your stories. For example you claimed
you were an engineer, then you said you never claimed you
were an engineer, and now you claim you're an engineer
again.
No lying. Revealed previously.
Yes, you lied.
For 45 years, dummy kid.
Does that confession make your soul feel better?
Worked as an engineer for 45 years and never lied on the ng during any of that
time. Tootles, peanut.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Ted
2018-01-22 15:31:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Yes you did change your stories. For example you claimed
you were an engineer, then you said you never claimed you
were an engineer, and now you claim you're an engineer
again.
No lying. Revealed previously.
Yes, you lied.
For 45 years, dummy kid.
Does that confession make your soul feel better?
Worked as an engineer for 45 years and never lied on the ng during any of that
time. Tootles, peanut.
the dukester, American-American
You worked as a mechanical engineer for 45 years without ever knowing a
damn bit about mechanics. That's one of the reasons you've become a
habitual liar.
Peter Pan
2018-01-22 19:59:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Yes you did change your stories. For example you claimed
you were an engineer, then you said you never claimed you
were an engineer, and now you claim you're an engineer
again.
No lying. Revealed previously.
Yes, you lied.
For 45 years, dummy kid.
Does that confession make your soul feel better?
Worked as an engineer for 45 years and never lied on the ng during any of that
time.
One poast, 2 lies. Not unusual for you.
Post by duke
Tootles, peanut.
Don't let the door thump your rump.
Teresita
2018-01-23 02:55:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
One poast, 2 lies. Not unusual for you.
What's a poast? A boastful post?
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
Atlatl Axolotl
2018-01-23 04:33:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
.> > One poast, 2 lies. Not unusual for you.
.> What's a poast? A boastful post?

It's like "teh". Or "cow orker".

AA
Post by Teresita
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
duke
2018-01-23 18:25:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 20:33:17 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> > One poast, 2 lies. Not unusual for you.
.> What's a poast? A boastful post?
It's like "teh". Or "cow orker".
Nope, no cows. It's a chicken egg.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Don Martin
2018-01-23 23:48:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 20:33:17 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> > One poast, 2 lies. Not unusual for you.
.> What's a poast? A boastful post?
It's like "teh". Or "cow orker".
I have never orked that cow, your Honor!
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
duke
2018-01-24 13:52:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 20:33:17 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> > One poast, 2 lies. Not unusual for you.
.> What's a poast? A boastful post?
It's like "teh". Or "cow orker".
I have never orked that cow, your Honor!
Maybe toxic did.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
duke
2018-01-23 18:24:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by Peter Pan
One poast, 2 lies. Not unusual for you.
What's a poast? A boastful post?
It's an egg, and he just laid it.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Don Martin
2018-01-23 23:48:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by Peter Pan
One poast, 2 lies. Not unusual for you.
What's a poast? A boastful post?
A post that has been browned in a poaster.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
duke
2018-01-24 13:53:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Martin
Post by Teresita
Post by Peter Pan
One poast, 2 lies. Not unusual for you.
What's a poast? A boastful post?
A post that has been browned in a poaster.
Did you mean poster?

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Ted
2018-01-24 16:12:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Don Martin
Post by Teresita
Post by Peter Pan
One poast, 2 lies. Not unusual for you.
What's a poast? A boastful post?
A post that has been browned in a poaster.
Did you mean poster?
the dukester, American-American
Duke's spell checker flagged an error, so he thinks Don doesn't know how
to spell "poster".
duke
2018-01-25 18:31:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Don Martin
Post by Teresita
Post by Peter Pan
One poast, 2 lies. Not unusual for you.
What's a poast? A boastful post?
A post that has been browned in a poaster.
Did you mean poster?
Duke's spell checker flagged an error, so he thinks Don doesn't know how
to spell "poster".
I think he just confirmed it.


the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Ted
2018-01-25 22:55:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Don Martin
Post by Teresita
Post by Peter Pan
One poast, 2 lies. Not unusual for you.
What's a poast? A boastful post?
A post that has been browned in a poaster.
Did you mean poster?
Duke's spell checker flagged an error, so he thinks Don doesn't know how
to spell "poster".
I think he just confirmed it.
the dukester, American-American
Don has you and me both killfiled, so he doesn't generally see what we
write.
duke
2018-01-23 18:24:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Does that confession make your soul feel better?
Worked as an engineer for 45 years and never lied on the ng during any of that
time.
One poast, 2 lies. Not unusual for you.
Is that "like an egg"? Haahaahaa.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Peter Pan
2018-01-24 20:03:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Does that confession make your soul feel better?
Worked as an engineer for 45 years and never lied on the ng during any of that
time.
One poast, 2 lies. Not unusual for you.
Is that "like an egg"? Haahaahaa.
It's more like Poast Tosties. But for you, with porkie
sausages in it.
duke
2018-01-25 18:32:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Does that confession make your soul feel better?
Worked as an engineer for 45 years and never lied on the ng during any of that
time.
One poast, 2 lies. Not unusual for you.
Is that "like an egg"? Haahaahaa.
It's more like Poast Tosties. But for you, with porkie
sausages in it.
Yep, you can't live on poast tosties.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Atlatl Axolotl
2018-01-20 16:06:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 15:56:27 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
==========================================================> > >> >> >> >> >>
Fucking hysterical, right duke32? Sorry, I meant 'duke lebourgeois'?
Erm, "Earl Weber"?
There are more where that came from. Would you like another trip
down memory lane?
Or two?
Let's have a whole bunch of them!
I was reading threads from back in 2001, which was apparently after he'd
already doxxed the innocent children of some of the others in the group.
Why would parents publish such information on the internet? That sounds like
where the doxxing took place.
What was your purpose in digging up such information
about your enemies' children and bringing it to usenet?
I didn't "look" it up. The dummy enemies posted it for all to see.
You mean, they posted links to web pages about their kids
to the ng, and said 'go to this site and see my kids' ?!?
Themselves and the kids nicknames only. And a couple of somewhat shady issues.
.> >You lost your account over links that others posted?
.> Nope, because I was a good Catholic telling truth to Catholic bashers.
Not even trying to hide the lies: no one loses an account for anything
like that.
So you didn't know that, early on, Compuserve was so strict that monitors would
threaten you for even hinting at bad word or thought in discussion. They
required the most purest of discussions or you were kicked off.
Nice try. Nobody is talking about Compuserve, that's
just your attempt at diversion.
Poor child. Just wasn't around then in those "innocent" days.
IIRC, you were kicked off SBC. Did they have a rule in
their TOS that "a good Catholic telling truth to Catholic
bashers is STRICTLY PROHIBITED"? Or are you lying on the
newsgroup again.
No, but they did that.
Then what did SBC close your account for? Did they not
tell you?
,> > You see what truth does. I never have to worry abut
,> > what I said because I never change my stories in lies like you do.
,> Yes you did change your stories. For example you claimed
,> you were an engineer, then you said you never claimed you
,> were an engineer, and now you claim you're an engineer
,> again.
.> > And he claimed that he worked on the pilot-killing jet engine, the TF30
.> > But this is too much fun: Engines: TF-30, J57, developmental stuff
.> > Aircraft: A-7, S-3, 747 (commercial)
.> > Missle: Scout
.> > Say "thanks duke."
.> > And again:
.> > That was me, duke, that helped design the TF30.
.> > Except when he didn't:
.> > BTW, it's YOUR story about the TF30, an engine that I never worked on.
.> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/kc6TGfiYxzI/0_SkhZHxsgEJ
.> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/pbDPiw17iEs/191ztotmdWwJ
.> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/H-FvtuPvlMo/FI2byRrg8QsJ
AA
.> Nice work, AA!
.> I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.

Actually, I wonder if he's the one who put "prat" in Pratt & Whitney...

(don't bother trying to explain British slang to Earl)


AA
duke
2018-01-21 14:54:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 08:06:42 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> Nice work, AA!
.> I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Actually, I wonder if he's the one who put "prat" in Pratt & Whitney...
(don't bother trying to explain British slang to Earl)
AA
I worked for P&W. You didn't. What are you trying to say?

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Atlatl Axolotl
2018-01-21 20:49:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 08:06:42 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> Nice work, AA!
.> I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
.> >Actually, I wonder if he's the one who put "prat" in Pratt & Whitney...
.> >(don't bother trying to explain British slang to Earl)
.> >AA
.> I worked for P&W. You didn't. What are you trying to say?

My *goodness* but a lot of what I wrote fell right off your reply.

Let's see if we can fix that, OK?

| And he claimed that he worked on the pilot-killing jet engine, the TF30

| But this is too much fun: Engines: TF-30, J57, developmental stuff
| Aircraft: A-7, S-3, 747 (commercial)
| Missle: Scout
| Say "thanks duke."
|
|
| And again:
|
| That was me, duke, that helped design the TF30.
|
|
| Except when he didn't:
|
| BTW, it's YOUR story about the TF30, an engine that I never worked on.
|
|
|
| https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/kc6TGfiYxzI/0_SkhZHxsgEJ
| https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/pbDPiw17iEs/191ztotmdWwJ
| https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/H-FvtuPvlMo/FI2byRrg8QsJ
|

There. All fixed now.


AA
duke
2018-01-22 12:40:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 12:49:53 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 08:06:42 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> Nice work, AA!
.> I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
.> >Actually, I wonder if he's the one who put "prat" in Pratt & Whitney...
.> >(don't bother trying to explain British slang to Earl)
.> >AA
.> I worked for P&W. You didn't. What are you trying to say?
My *goodness* but a lot of what I wrote fell right off your reply.
Let's see if we can fix that, OK?
Waiting. You have too much toxic on the brain.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Atlatl Axolotl
2018-01-22 19:28:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 12:49:53 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 08:06:42 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> Nice work, AA!
.> I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
.> >Actually, I wonder if he's the one who put "prat" in Pratt & Whitney...
.> >(don't bother trying to explain British slang to Earl)
.> >AA
.> I worked for P&W. You didn't. What are you trying to say?
.> >My *goodness* but a lot of what I wrote fell right off your reply.
.> >Let's see if we can fix that, OK?
.> Waiting. You have too much toxic on the brain.

My goodness gracious -- when Earl pointedly snips out something
twice, it's proof he doesn't want anyone seeing it.

Let's see what we can do about this:

++ And he claimed that he worked on the pilot-killing jet engine, the TF30

++ But this is too much fun: Engines: TF-30, J57, developmental stuff
++ Aircraft: A-7, S-3, 747 (commercial)
++ Missle: Scout
++ Say "thanks duke."
++
++
++ And again:
++
++ That was me, duke, that helped design the TF30.
++
++
++ Except when he didn't:
++
++ BTW, it's YOUR story about the TF30, an engine that I never worked on.
++
++
++
++ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/kc6TGfiYxzI/0_SkhZHxsgEJ
++ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/pbDPiw17iEs/191ztotmdWwJ
++ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/H-FvtuPvlMo/FI2byRrg8QsJ
++

Now you go right ahead and have your snippity snippity fun, Earl.
But the net never forgets.

AA
duke
2018-01-23 18:23:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 11:28:53 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 12:49:53 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 08:06:42 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> Nice work, AA!
.> I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
.> >Actually, I wonder if he's the one who put "prat" in Pratt & Whitney...
.> >(don't bother trying to explain British slang to Earl)
.> >AA
.> I worked for P&W. You didn't. What are you trying to say?
.> >My *goodness* but a lot of what I wrote fell right off your reply.
.> >Let's see if we can fix that, OK?
.> Waiting. You have too much toxic on the brain.
My goodness gracious -- when Earl pointedly snips out something
twice, it's proof he doesn't want anyone seeing it.
They saw it before.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
++ And he claimed that he worked on the pilot-killing jet engine, the TF30
++ But this is too much fun: Engines: TF-30, J57, developmental stuff
++ Aircraft: A-7, S-3, 747 (commercial)
++ Missle: Scout
++ Say "thanks duke."
++
++
++
++ That was me, duke, that helped design the TF30.
++
++
++
++ BTW, it's YOUR story about the TF30, an engine that I never worked on.
Now you go right ahead and have your snippity snippity fun, Earl.
But the net never forgets.
Your sugar-frosted still won't let you understand. I never worked on the TF-30,
but I helped design it.

Stupid kid.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Teresita
2018-01-24 03:03:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Your sugar-frosted still won't let you understand. I never worked on the TF-30,
but I helped design it.
Doesn't design count as work? Or did you scribble something on yellow
construction paper with a black crayon and offer it to the real
engineers for free?
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
duke
2018-01-24 13:51:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Your sugar-frosted still won't let you understand. I never worked on the TF-30,
but I helped design it.
Doesn't design count as work? Or did you scribble something on yellow
construction paper with a black crayon and offer it to the real
engineers for free?
Test engineers don't design.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Atlatl Axolotl
2018-01-24 14:48:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
.> >> Your sugar-frosted still won't let you understand. I never worked on the TF-30,

Earl:
But this is too much fun: Engines: TF-30, J57, developmental stuff
Aircraft: A-7, S-3, 747 (commercial)
Missle: Scout

Say "thanks duke."

BDK:
If you really worked on the above...

Earl:
Oh, I did, I definitely did.


-- https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.atheism/kc6TGfiYxzI/Lb2rHcfEyBMJ


AA
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
but I helped design it.
Doesn't design count as work? Or did you scribble something on yellow
construction paper with a black crayon and offer it to the real
engineers for free?
Test engineers don't design.
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.
*****
duke
2018-01-25 18:42:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 06:48:41 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> >> Your sugar-frosted still won't let you understand. I never worked on the TF-30,
But this is too much fun: Engines: TF-30, J57, developmental stuff
Aircraft: A-7, S-3, 747 (commercial)
Missle: Scout
Say "thanks duke."
If you really worked on the above...
Oh, I did, I definitely did.
(Developmental stuff).

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Marvin Sebourn
2018-01-24 16:30:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Your sugar-frosted still won't let you understand. I never worked on the TF-30,
but I helped design it.
Doesn't design count as work? Or did you scribble something on yellow
construction paper with a black crayon and offer it to the real
engineers for free?
Test engineers don't design.
They don't, in any fashion?

Your claim is very broad. Support it.

If you cannot support your claim, and fall back to your use of the words such as fairies, dykes, stupidity, imaginary, etc., it is tantamount to admitting that you cannot support your statement.

Put your experience to use. Plagiarize as necessary.

Marvin Sebourn
***@aol.com



Marvin Sebourn
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.
*****
duke
2018-01-25 18:49:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Your sugar-frosted still won't let you understand. I never worked on the TF-30,
but I helped design it.
Doesn't design count as work? Or did you scribble something on yellow
construction paper with a black crayon and offer it to the real
engineers for free?
Test engineers don't design.
They don't, in any fashion?
Not usually the products they're testing. You people are so simple minded that
you just can't grasp the concept of design of support equipment "used in
testing".

I don't think I ever actually worked on the TF30 itself, but possible I did on a
test rig. That' was the design group I was assigned to. It hard to remember
what was the use of some ancillary designs I worked on.

That's doesn't eliminate that pilot design was likely a reason for bdk's
cousin's life.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Atlatl Axolotl
2018-01-25 19:27:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Your sugar-frosted still won't let you understand. I never worked on the TF-30,
but I helped design it.
Doesn't design count as work? Or did you scribble something on yellow
construction paper with a black crayon and offer it to the real
engineers for free?
Test engineers don't design.
They don't, in any fashion?
Not usually the products they're testing. You people are so simple minded that
you just can't grasp the concept of design of support equipment "used in
testing".
I don't think I ever actually worked on the TF30 itself, but possible I did on a
test rig. That' was the design group I was assigned to. It hard to remember
what was the use of some ancillary designs I worked on.
.> That's doesn't eliminate that pilot design was likely a reason for bdk's
.> cousin's life.

And that "doesn't eliminate" the fact that when someone informed you
of his cousin's death, you immediately mocked him.

Way to love your neighbor. Your behavior makes a mockery
of your religion.


AA
Teresita
2018-01-26 02:11:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
I don't think I ever actually worked on the TF30 itself, but possible I did on a
test rig.
Possible. You don't know because you haven't made the details of that
part up yet.
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
TT Liams
2018-01-25 00:10:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 19:03:06 -0800, Teresita
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Your sugar-frosted still won't let you understand. I never
worked on the TF-30,
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
but I helped design it.
Doesn't design count as work? Or did you scribble something on yellow
construction paper with a black crayon and offer it to the real
engineers for free?
Test engineers don't design.
I'm an engineer that can test & design. You need to do what ever it
take's to get the jobs done rumdum lol your a rumdum lol.
Teresita
2018-01-25 04:02:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Your sugar-frosted still won't let you understand. I never worked on the TF-30,
but I helped design it.
Doesn't design count as work? Or did you scribble something on yellow
construction paper with a black crayon and offer it to the real
engineers for free?
Test engineers don't design.
What about the test? Do they design that, or do they just get it passed
down from some mythical First Engineer in the distant past?
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
duke
2018-01-25 18:53:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Your sugar-frosted still won't let you understand. I never worked on the TF-30,
but I helped design it.
Doesn't design count as work? Or did you scribble something on yellow
construction paper with a black crayon and offer it to the real
engineers for free?
Test engineers don't design.
What about the test? Do they design that, or do they just get it passed
down from some mythical First Engineer in the distant past?
An engine type takes dozens and dozens of engineers at work. Some structural,
wiring, some piping, some heat design, some bearing housing, some blade design,
some cooling design, some combustion chamber design, some redesign of things
that didn't pan out, like a rotor crack, etc.

You simple minded people just don't get it.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Ted
2018-01-21 23:10:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 08:06:42 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> Nice work, AA!
.> I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Actually, I wonder if he's the one who put "prat" in Pratt & Whitney...
(don't bother trying to explain British slang to Earl)
AA
I worked for P&W. You didn't. What are you trying to say?
the dukester, American-American
How long did you work there before you were revealed as a fraud?
duke
2018-01-22 12:41:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by duke
On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 08:06:42 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> Nice work, AA!
.> I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Actually, I wonder if he's the one who put "prat" in Pratt & Whitney...
(don't bother trying to explain British slang to Earl)
AA
I worked for P&W. You didn't. What are you trying to say?
How long did you work there before you were revealed as a fraud?
Ask toxic what his problem is?

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Atlatl Axolotl
2018-01-20 16:08:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 16:46:10 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Nice try. Nobody is talking about Compuserve, that's
just your attempt at diversion.
Part of story.
Poor child. Just wasn't around then in those "innocent" days.
Then what did SBC close your account for? Did they not
tell you?
Disturbing to poor innocent fallen away Catholics.
That's nice.

Now why don't you see if you can figure out who actually
wrote that, and reply to them instead.

Take all the time you need.


AA
duke
2018-01-21 14:50:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 08:08:24 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 16:46:10 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Nice try. Nobody is talking about Compuserve, that's
just your attempt at diversion.
Part of story.
Poor child. Just wasn't around then in those "innocent" days.
Then what did SBC close your account for? Did they not
tell you?
Disturbing to poor innocent fallen away Catholics.
That's nice.
Now why don't you see if you can figure out who actually
wrote that, and reply to them instead.
Take all the time you need.
You were addressing the subject and was I.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Peter Pan
2018-01-20 21:14:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 15:56:27 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
===========================================================
Fucking hysterical, right duke32?  Sorry, I meant  'duke lebourgeois'?
  Erm, "Earl Weber"?
There are more where that came from.  Would you like another trip
down memory lane?
Or two?
Let's have a whole bunch of them!
I was reading threads from back in 2001, which was apparently after he'd
already doxxed the innocent children of some of the others in the group.
Why would parents publish such information on the internet? That sounds like
where the doxxing took place.
What was your purpose in digging up such information
about your enemies' children and bringing it to usenet?
I didn't "look" it up. The dummy enemies posted it for all to see.
You mean, they posted links to web pages about their kids
to the ng, and said 'go to this site and see my kids' ?!?
Themselves and the kids nicknames only. And a couple of somewhat shady issues.
.> >You lost your account over links that others posted?
.> Nope, because I was a good Catholic telling truth to Catholic bashers.
Not even trying to hide the lies: no one loses an account for anything
like that.
So you didn't know that, early on, Compuserve was so strict that monitors would
threaten you for even hinting at bad word or thought in discussion. They
required the most purest of discussions or you were kicked off.
Nice try. Nobody is talking about Compuserve, that's
just your attempt at diversion.
Poor child. Just wasn't around then in those "innocent" days.
IIRC, you were kicked off SBC. Did they have a rule in
their TOS that "a good Catholic telling truth to Catholic
bashers is STRICTLY PROHIBITED"? Or are you lying on the
newsgroup again.
No, but they did that.
Then what did SBC close your account for? Did they not
tell you?
Yes, I was disturbing to the poor fallen away Catholics. Revealed previously.
You were doing more than disturbing them. And revealed
previously by AA.

BTW, Cox, not SBC.
You see what truth does. I never have to worry abut
what I said because I never change my stories in lies like you do.
Yes you did change your stories. For example you claimed
you were an engineer, then you said you never claimed you
were an engineer, and now you claim you're an engineer
again.
No lying. Revealed previously.
Yes, much lying. Ted revealed your conflicting claims
about being/not being an engineer.

You'd get more respect by admitting you never were an
engineer. You're only fooling yourself.

You do believe your lies, right?
duke
2018-01-21 14:59:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
So you didn't know that, early on, Compuserve was so strict that monitors would
threaten you for even hinting at bad word or thought in discussion. They
required the most purest of discussions or you were kicked off.
Nice try. Nobody is talking about Compuserve, that's
just your attempt at diversion.
Poor child. Just wasn't around then in those "innocent" days.
IIRC, you were kicked off SBC. Did they have a rule in
their TOS that "a good Catholic telling truth to Catholic
bashers is STRICTLY PROHIBITED"? Or are you lying on the
newsgroup again.
No, but they did that.
Then what did SBC close your account for? Did they not
tell you?
Yes, I was disturbing to the poor fallen away Catholics. Revealed previously.
You were doing more than disturbing them. And revealed
previously by AA.
BTW, Cox, not SBC.
.
Post by Peter Pan
You see what truth does. I never have to worry abut
what I said because I never change my stories in lies like you do.
Yes you did change your stories. For example you claimed
you were an engineer, then you said you never claimed you
were an engineer, and now you claim you're an engineer
again.
No lying. Revealed previously.
Yes, much lying. Ted revealed your conflicting claims
about being/not being an engineer.
No lying. It was numerous years ago that I overlooked a discussion where is
really did admit I was an engineer.
Post by Peter Pan
You'd get more respect by admitting you never were an
engineer. You're only fooling yourself.
You do believe your lies, right?
An inadvertent forgotten comment is not a lie.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Peter Pan
2018-01-21 19:12:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
So you didn't know that, early on, Compuserve was so strict that monitors would
threaten you for even hinting at bad word or thought in discussion. They
required the most purest of discussions or you were kicked off.
Nice try. Nobody is talking about Compuserve, that's
just your attempt at diversion.
Poor child. Just wasn't around then in those "innocent" days.
IIRC, you were kicked off SBC. Did they have a rule in
their TOS that "a good Catholic telling truth to Catholic
bashers is STRICTLY PROHIBITED"? Or are you lying on the
newsgroup again.
No, but they did that.
Then what did SBC close your account for? Did they not
tell you?
Yes, I was disturbing to the poor fallen away Catholics. Revealed previously.
You were doing more than disturbing them. And revealed
previously by AA.
BTW, Cox, not SBC.
.
Post by Peter Pan
You see what truth does. I never have to worry abut
what I said because I never change my stories in lies like you do.
Yes you did change your stories. For example you claimed
you were an engineer, then you said you never claimed you
were an engineer, and now you claim you're an engineer
again.
No lying. Revealed previously.
Yes, much lying. Ted revealed your conflicting claims
about being/not being an engineer.
No lying. It was numerous years ago that I overlooked a discussion where is
really did admit I was an engineer.
You knew you had claimed to be an engineer before. That's
not something you easily forget. Unless you're duke.

But your "admission" was a lie. So there you have it.
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
You'd get more respect by admitting you never were an
engineer. You're only fooling yourself.
You do believe your lies, right?
An inadvertent forgotten comment is not a lie.
When you claim to have a MSEE degree, it's not
inadvertant. It's just a plain old lie.
duke
2018-01-22 12:47:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
No lying. It was numerous years ago that I overlooked a discussion where is
really did admit I was an engineer.
You knew you had claimed to be an engineer before. That's
not something you easily forget. Unless you're duke.
Not in an isolated admission years ago regarding the partial pressure of water.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Ted
2018-01-22 15:19:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
No lying. It was numerous years ago that I overlooked a discussion where is
really did admit I was an engineer.
You knew you had claimed to be an engineer before. That's
not something you easily forget. Unless you're duke.
Not in an isolated admission years ago regarding the partial pressure of water.
the dukester, American-American
We've been through this before, you lying piece of garbage, and then
Rudy posted links to your statements from 2017 saying you were an engineer.
duke
2018-01-21 14:51:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation. A ball on a string has none.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Peter Pan
2018-01-21 19:06:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Post by duke
A ball on a string has none.
Then the moon must not rotate either, right?
duke
2018-01-22 12:35:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
A ball on a string has none.
Then the moon must not rotate either, right?
Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Ted
2018-01-22 15:47:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
What does fps rotation mean?
Peter Pan
2018-01-22 19:21:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
What does fps rotation mean?
It must mean the instantaneous velocity at the center of
the circle. :)
Atlatl Axolotl
2018-01-22 19:31:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
.> > What does fps rotation mean?
.> It must mean the instantaneous velocity at the center of
.> the circle. :)

That's the Earl-centric coordinate system, I assume?


AA
Peter Pan
2018-01-22 19:54:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
.> > What does fps rotation mean?
.> It must mean the instantaneous velocity at the center of
.> the circle. :)
That's the Earl-centric coordinate system, I assume?
Aren't we so blessed to be able to live in the same
universe that revolves at high velocity around Earl?
Atlatl Axolotl
2018-01-22 20:05:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
.> > What does fps rotation mean?
.> > .> It must mean the instantaneous velocity at the center of
.> > .> the circle. :)
.> > That's the Earl-centric coordinate system, I assume?
.> Aren't we so blessed to be able to live in the same
.> universe that revolves at high velocity around Earl?

Not sure -- we need to get a pail of water and see if it's
depressed in the middle.

If it is, the Earl-centric system is a non-inertial one, and
non-inertial coordinate systems are a bitch.

Just like Earl.

AA
duke
2018-01-23 18:18:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:05:54 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
.> > What does fps rotation mean?
.> > .> It must mean the instantaneous velocity at the center of
.> > .> the circle. :)
.> > That's the Earl-centric coordinate system, I assume?
.> Aren't we so blessed to be able to live in the same
.> universe that revolves at high velocity around Earl?
Not sure -- we need to get a pail of water and see if it's
depressed in the middle.
If it is, the Earl-centric system is a non-inertial one, and
non-inertial coordinate systems are a bitch.
You girls have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Ted
2018-01-23 18:33:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:05:54 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
.> > What does fps rotation mean?
.> > .> It must mean the instantaneous velocity at the center of
.> > .> the circle. :)
.> > That's the Earl-centric coordinate system, I assume?
.> Aren't we so blessed to be able to live in the same
.> universe that revolves at high velocity around Earl?
Not sure -- we need to get a pail of water and see if it's
depressed in the middle.
If it is, the Earl-centric system is a non-inertial one, and
non-inertial coordinate systems are a bitch.
You girls have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
the dukester, American-American
Earl has absolutely no idea what AA is talking about. :)
Atlatl Axolotl
2018-01-23 18:58:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:05:54 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
.> > What does fps rotation mean?
.> > .> It must mean the instantaneous velocity at the center of
.> > .> the circle. :)
.> > That's the Earl-centric coordinate system, I assume?
.> Aren't we so blessed to be able to live in the same
.> universe that revolves at high velocity around Earl?
.> >> Not sure -- we need to get a pail of water and see if it's
.> >> depressed in the middle.
.> >> If it is, the Earl-centric system is a non-inertial one, and
.> >> non-inertial coordinate systems are a bitch.
.> > You girls have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
.> Earl has absolutely no idea what AA is talking about. :)

Well, let's be fair: physics are involved.

You can't really ask that of him.


AA
Ted
2018-01-23 22:59:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:05:54 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
.> > What does fps rotation mean?
.> > .> It must mean the instantaneous velocity at the center of
.> > .> the circle. :)
.> > That's the Earl-centric coordinate system, I assume?
.> Aren't we so blessed to be able to live in the same
.> universe that revolves at high velocity around Earl?
.> >> Not sure -- we need to get a pail of water and see if it's
.> >> depressed in the middle.
.> >> If it is, the Earl-centric system is a non-inertial one, and
.> >> non-inertial coordinate systems are a bitch.
.> > You girls have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
.> Earl has absolutely no idea what AA is talking about. :)
Well, let's be fair: physics are involved.
You can't really ask that of him.
AA
And especially not mechanics.
duke
2018-01-24 13:47:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:58:35 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:05:54 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
.> > What does fps rotation mean?
.> > .> It must mean the instantaneous velocity at the center of
.> > .> the circle. :)
.> > That's the Earl-centric coordinate system, I assume?
.> Aren't we so blessed to be able to live in the same
.> universe that revolves at high velocity around Earl?
.> >> Not sure -- we need to get a pail of water and see if it's
.> >> depressed in the middle.
.> >> If it is, the Earl-centric system is a non-inertial one, and
.> >> non-inertial coordinate systems are a bitch.
.> > You girls have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
.> Earl has absolutely no idea what AA is talking about. :)
Well, let's be fair: physics are involved.
Yet the subject is ROTATION of the pail of water.. You are horribly confused.




the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
duke
2018-01-23 18:16:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
.> > What does fps rotation mean?
.> It must mean the instantaneous velocity at the center of
.> the circle. :)
That's the Earl-centric coordinate system, I assume?
Aren't we so blessed to be able to live in the same
universe that revolves at high velocity around Earl?
Actually, it's the molasses you're moving thru.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Peter Pan
2018-01-24 09:38:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
.> > What does fps rotation mean?
.> It must mean the instantaneous velocity at the center of
.> the circle. :)
That's the Earl-centric coordinate system, I assume?
Aren't we so blessed to be able to live in the same
universe that revolves at high velocity around Earl?
Actually, it's the molasses you're moving thru.
The Earl-centric universe is made out of molasses? That's
an aaa-grade assertion. Who knew....

Does the molasses pray?
duke
2018-01-23 18:16:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 11:31:18 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
.> > What does fps rotation mean?
.> It must mean the instantaneous velocity at the center of
.> the circle. :)
That's the Earl-centric coordinate system, I assume?
You mean like a singularity at the center of the circle?

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Ted
2018-01-22 22:33:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
What does fps rotation mean?
It must mean the instantaneous velocity at the center of
the circle. :)
LOL. Well, Duke had no problem answering you with "Varies by engine. Don't
you know anything?

So he must know what it means, right?
duke
2018-01-23 18:15:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
What does fps rotation mean?
It must mean the instantaneous velocity at the center of
the circle. :)
Hey, girls, where do you measure the speed in fps on a gas turbine?

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Peter Pan
2018-01-22 19:50:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
A ball on a string has none.
Then the moon must not rotate either, right?
Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.
You are 100% false. The same side of the moon always
faces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!

The moon's period of rotation is equal to the period of
revolution about the earth. They are in tidal sync. One
to one. Which means the motion of the moon with respect
to the earth is the same as the motion of the ball on a
string WRT the swinger, aside from minor differences that
are over your head.

They both rotate, duke.

The Dark Side of the Moon isn't just for ganga tokers.
duke
2018-01-23 18:19:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
A ball on a string has none.
Then the moon must not rotate either, right?
Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.
You are 100% false. The same side of the moon always
faces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!
If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions of years. And
guess what - no strings attached.
Post by Peter Pan
The moon's period of rotation is equal to the period of
revolution about the earth. They are in tidal sync. One
to one. Which means the motion of the moon with respect
to the earth is the same as the motion of the ball on a
string WRT the swinger, aside from minor differences that
are over your head.
They both rotate, duke.
The Dark Side of the Moon isn't just for ganga tokers.
the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Peter Pan
2018-01-24 19:58:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
A ball on a string has none.
Then the moon must not rotate either, right?
Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.
You are 100% false. The same side of the moon always
faces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!
If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions of years. And
guess what - no strings attached.
And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.
If you were an engineer, you would get it.
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
The moon's period of rotation is equal to the period of
revolution about the earth. They are in tidal sync. One
to one. Which means the motion of the moon with respect
to the earth is the same as the motion of the ball on a
string WRT the swinger, aside from minor differences that
are over your head.
They both rotate, duke.
The Dark Side of the Moon isn't just for ganga tokers.
duke
2018-01-25 18:55:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
A ball on a string has none.
Then the moon must not rotate either, right?
Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.
You are 100% false. The same side of the moon always
faces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!
If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions of years. And
guess what - no strings attached.
And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.
If you were an engineer, you would get it.
A ball on a string doesn't rotate. No rotation vectors.

If the string breaks and the ball flies off on the tangent, where is the
rotation them. Would it start spinning at the break? Conservation of energy
and all that.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Atlatl Axolotl
2018-01-25 19:31:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
A ball on a string has none.
Then the moon must not rotate either, right?
Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.
You are 100% false. The same side of the moon always
faces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!
If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions of years. And
guess what - no strings attached.
And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.
If you were an engineer, you would get it.
.> A ball on a string doesn't rotate. No rotation vectors.

Specify for us the rotation vectors of the Moon.





AA
Post by duke
If the string breaks and the ball flies off on the tangent, where is the
rotation them. Would it start spinning at the break? Conservation of energy
and all that.
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.
*****
duke
2018-01-28 23:00:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 11:31:21 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
A ball on a string has none.
Then the moon must not rotate either, right?
Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.
You are 100% false. The same side of the moon always
faces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!
If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions of years. And
guess what - no strings attached.
And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.
If you were an engineer, you would get it.
.> A ball on a string doesn't rotate. No rotation vectors.
Specify for us the rotation vectors of the Moon.
Toxic, do you by any chance understand what a rotating object is doing? LIke,
just pretend you can engage your brain and visualize a rotating object. Do you
understand now?

A turbine shaft/rotor rotates around it's own cg on bearings front and back.
A car tire rotates around it's own cg..
A child's toy "top" rotates around it's own cg.
A thrown baseball rotates around it's own cg..
A golf ball hits and rolls around it's own cg.
The earth rotates around it's own cg.
The moon rotates around it's own cg.

Is lesson one (1), so far, finally starting to sink in?

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Marvin Sebourn
2018-01-29 00:47:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 11:31:21 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
A ball on a string has none.
Then the moon must not rotate either, right?
Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.
You are 100% false. The same side of the moon always
faces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!
If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions of years. And
guess what - no strings attached.
And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.
If you were an engineer, you would get it.
.> A ball on a string doesn't rotate. No rotation vectors.
Specify for us the rotation vectors of the Moon.
Toxic, do you by any chance understand what a rotating object is doing? LIke,
just pretend you can engage your brain and visualize a rotating object. Do you
understand now?
A turbine shaft/rotor rotates around it's own cg on bearings front and back.
A car tire rotates around it's own cg..
A child's toy "top" rotates around it's own cg.
A thrown baseball rotates around it's own cg..
A golf ball hits and rolls around it's own cg.
The earth rotates around it's own cg.
The moon rotates around it's own cg.
Interesting. So the center of gravity of a rotating object is its axis of rotation?

Thanks.

Marvin Sebourn
Post by duke
Is lesson one (1), so far, finally starting to sink in?
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.
*****
hleopold
2018-01-29 02:45:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by duke
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 11:31:21 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 05:45:36 -0800, Teresita
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector,
north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him
up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
A ball on a string has none.
Then the moon must not rotate either, right?
Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of
the earth.
You are 100% false. The same side of the moon always
faces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!
If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions of
years. And
guess what - no strings attached.
And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.
If you were an engineer, you would get it.
.> A ball on a string doesn't rotate. No rotation vectors.
Specify for us the rotation vectors of the Moon.
Toxic, do you by any chance understand what a rotating object is doing?
LIke,
just pretend you can engage your brain and visualize a rotating object. Do
you
understand now?
A turbine shaft/rotor rotates around it's own cg on bearings front and back.
A car tire rotates around it's own cg..
A child's toy "top" rotates around it's own cg.
A thrown baseball rotates around it's own cg..
A golf ball hits and rolls around it's own cg.
The earth rotates around it's own cg.
The moon rotates around it's own cg.
Interesting. So the center of gravity of a rotating object is its axis of rotation?
Thanks.
So Duke does not know where the moons center of gravity is? Figures.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness (remove gene to email)

“They are actually a manifestation of the famed Usenet hydra: you cut off
one head, and a stupider one grows back...“-Bonfire of the Deities
duke
2018-01-30 23:26:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hleopold
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by duke
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 11:31:21 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 05:45:36 -0800, Teresita
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector,
north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him
up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
A ball on a string has none.
Then the moon must not rotate either, right?
Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of
the earth.
You are 100% false. The same side of the moon always
faces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!
If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions of
years. And
guess what - no strings attached.
And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.
If you were an engineer, you would get it.
.> A ball on a string doesn't rotate. No rotation vectors.
Specify for us the rotation vectors of the Moon.
Toxic, do you by any chance understand what a rotating object is doing?
LIke,
just pretend you can engage your brain and visualize a rotating object. Do
you
understand now?
A turbine shaft/rotor rotates around it's own cg on bearings front and back.
A car tire rotates around it's own cg..
A child's toy "top" rotates around it's own cg.
A thrown baseball rotates around it's own cg..
A golf ball hits and rolls around it's own cg.
The earth rotates around it's own cg.
The moon rotates around it's own cg.
Interesting. So the center of gravity of a rotating object is its axis of rotation?
Thanks.
So Duke does not know where the moons center of gravity is? Figures.
Amazing deduction. Just how stupid can one person turn out to be.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
duke
2018-01-30 23:25:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by duke
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 11:31:21 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
A ball on a string has none.
Then the moon must not rotate either, right?
Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.
You are 100% false. The same side of the moon always
faces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!
If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions of years. And
guess what - no strings attached.
And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.
If you were an engineer, you would get it.
.> A ball on a string doesn't rotate. No rotation vectors.
Specify for us the rotation vectors of the Moon.
Toxic, do you by any chance understand what a rotating object is doing? LIke,
just pretend you can engage your brain and visualize a rotating object. Do you
understand now?
A turbine shaft/rotor rotates around it's own cg on bearings front and back.
A car tire rotates around it's own cg..
A child's toy "top" rotates around it's own cg.
A thrown baseball rotates around it's own cg..
A golf ball hits and rolls around it's own cg.
The earth rotates around it's own cg.
The moon rotates around it's own cg.
Interesting. So the center of gravity of a rotating object is its axis of rotation?
And to think you never even knew this. Please pass it on to teresita, toxic,
gman, peanut and company. They are in need of some serious knowledge about
rotation.

Of course, in their crude way, they'll ask about throwing a sledge hammer and of
that's "rotation"..

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Marvin Sebourn
2018-01-31 02:55:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by duke
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 11:31:21 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
A ball on a string has none.
Then the moon must not rotate either, right?
Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.
You are 100% false. The same side of the moon always
faces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!
If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions of years. And
guess what - no strings attached.
And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.
If you were an engineer, you would get it.
.> A ball on a string doesn't rotate. No rotation vectors.
Specify for us the rotation vectors of the Moon.
Toxic, do you by any chance understand what a rotating object is doing? LIke,
just pretend you can engage your brain and visualize a rotating object. Do you
understand now?
A turbine shaft/rotor rotates around it's own cg on bearings front and back.
A car tire rotates around it's own cg..
A child's toy "top" rotates around it's own cg.
A thrown baseball rotates around it's own cg..
A golf ball hits and rolls around it's own cg.
The earth rotates around it's own cg.
The moon rotates around it's own cg.
Interesting. So the center of gravity of a rotating object is its axis of rotation?
And to think you never even knew this.
Extremely poor reading comprehension, Duke. I didn't say that I didn't know, or not know, that "the center of gravity of a rotating object is its axis of rotation". I asked you if that was what you meant.

To paraphrase Joe Bruno: "YOU CAN"T READ! DAMN YOU"RE STUPID"!

And as far as rotation not about the center of gravity, look up "eccentric rotation".

And listen to AA, or Harry, or Sam, or Teresita and learn about earth and lunar rotation. And many others here. Linux Girl might help you, if she were here. Or Don Martin, or ALex, or a score of others here.

Dummy. But you're funny, witnessing the comedy of your ineptitude, Dukeling.

Marvin Sebourn
Post by duke
Please pass it on to teresita, toxic,
gman, peanut and company. They are in need of some serious knowledge about
rotation.
I will by posting this. If they read it, it should afford them much amusement. No real knowledge, but much amusement.

Marvin Sebourn
Post by duke
Of course, in their crude way, they'll ask about throwing a sledge hammer and of
that's "rotation"..
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.
*****
Teresita
2018-01-26 02:09:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
If the string breaks and the ball flies off on the tangent, where is the
rotation them. Would it start spinning at the break?
If the Earth suddenly disappeared, would the moon start (or stop) spinning?
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
duke
2018-01-28 23:02:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
If the string breaks and the ball flies off on the tangent, where is the
rotation them. Would it start spinning at the break?
If the Earth suddenly disappeared, would the moon start (or stop) spinning?
Conservation of energy. It continues to rotate around it's own cg which it was
doing before the earth disappeared.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Teresita
2018-01-28 23:06:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
If the string breaks and the ball flies off on the tangent, where is the
rotation them. Would it start spinning at the break?
If the Earth suddenly disappeared, would the moon start (or stop) spinning?
Conservation of energy. It continues to rotate around it's own cg which it was
doing before the earth disappeared.
So why isn't a ball on a string also rotating around its own cg?
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
duke
2018-01-30 23:27:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
If the string breaks and the ball flies off on the tangent, where is the
rotation them. Would it start spinning at the break?
If the Earth suddenly disappeared, would the moon start (or stop) spinning?
Conservation of energy. It continues to rotate around it's own cg which it was
doing before the earth disappeared.
So why isn't a ball on a string also rotating around its own cg?
Because it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on the
ground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles the
earth.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Teresita
2018-01-31 01:56:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Because it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on the
ground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles the
earth.
So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately wind
down the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
duke
2018-01-31 19:58:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Because it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on the
ground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles the
earth.
So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately wind
down the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?
With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachment
becomes the string to the earth.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Teresita
2018-02-01 02:05:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Because it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on the
ground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles the
earth.
So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately wind
down the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?
With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachment
becomes the string to the earth.
If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make
it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is
attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
duke
2018-02-01 19:20:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Because it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on the
ground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles the
earth.
So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately wind
down the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?
With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachment
becomes the string to the earth.
If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make
it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is
attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?
Good grief, but you're ignorant. Let me guess. You think the moon string is
just flapping in the breeze on the earth end.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Atlatl Axolotl
2018-02-01 20:37:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Because it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on the
ground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles the
earth.
So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately wind
down the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?
With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachment
becomes the string to the earth.
.> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make
.> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is
.> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?
.> Good grief, but you're ignorant.

Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)
"I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"

AA
. Let me guess. You think the moon string is
just flapping in the breeze on the earth end.
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.
*****
Teresita
2018-02-02 02:25:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Because it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on the
ground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles the
earth.
So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately wind
down the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?
With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachment
becomes the string to the earth.
.> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make
.> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is
.> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?
.> Good grief, but you're ignorant.
Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)
"I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"
If Duke claimed that the Moon did NOT rotate, then I'd understand that
he was using a reference frame that was rotating, and he'd have a
(astonishingly weak) case. But he asserts the Moon DOES rotate, and a
ball on a string does NOT. And I'm the ignorant one, he says.
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
Dreamer In Colore
2018-02-02 13:38:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Because it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on the
ground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles the
earth.
So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately wind
down the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?
With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachment
becomes the string to the earth.
.> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make
.> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is
.> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?
.> Good grief, but you're ignorant.
Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)
"I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"
If Duke claimed that the Moon did NOT rotate, then I'd understand that
he was using a reference frame that was rotating, and he'd have a
(astonishingly weak) case. But he asserts the Moon DOES rotate, and a
ball on a string does NOT. And I'm the ignorant one, he says.
I was going to write a little joke here about Euclidean geometry,
non-Euclidean according to Lovecraft, and Weberian geometry. So I
wanted to get my facts straight and I googled "types of geometry".

I'd never even heard of taxicab geometry, and I didn't know if anyone
else here had, but check this out:

"Taxicab geometry can be used to assess the differences in discrete
frequency distributions. For example, in RNA splicing positional
distributions of hexamers, which plot the probability of each hexamer
appearing at each given nucleotide near a splice site, can be compared
with L1-distance. Each position distribution can be represented as a
vector where each entry represents the likelihood of the hexamer
starting at a certain nucleotide. A large L1-distance between the two
vectors indicates a significant difference in the nature of the
distributions while a small distance denotes similarly shaped
distributions. This is equivalent to measuring the area between the
two distribution curves because the area of each segment is the
absolute difference between the two curves' likelihoods at that point.
When summed together for all segments, it provides the same measure as
L1-distance."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_geometry

I know it's geeky, but it's pretty damn cool regardless.
--
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

"If God listened to the prayers of men, all men would quickly have
perished: for they are forever praying for evil against one another."

Epicurus
duke
2018-02-02 19:10:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 08:38:57 -0500, Dreamer In Colore
Post by Dreamer In Colore
Post by Teresita
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Because it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on the
ground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles the
earth.
So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately wind
down the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?
With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachment
becomes the string to the earth.
.> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make
.> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is
.> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?
.> Good grief, but you're ignorant.
Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)
"I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"
If Duke claimed that the Moon did NOT rotate, then I'd understand that
he was using a reference frame that was rotating, and he'd have a
(astonishingly weak) case. But he asserts the Moon DOES rotate, and a
ball on a string does NOT. And I'm the ignorant one, he says.
I was going to write a little joke here about Euclidean geometry,
non-Euclidean according to Lovecraft, and Weberian geometry. So I
wanted to get my facts straight and I googled "types of geometry".
I'd never even heard of taxicab geometry, and I didn't know if anyone
"Taxicab geometry can be used to assess the differences in discrete
frequency distributions. For example, in RNA splicing positional
distributions of hexamers, which plot the probability of each hexamer
appearing at each given nucleotide near a splice site, can be compared
with L1-distance. Each position distribution can be represented as a
vector where each entry represents the likelihood of the hexamer
starting at a certain nucleotide. A large L1-distance between the two
vectors indicates a significant difference in the nature of the
distributions while a small distance denotes similarly shaped
distributions. This is equivalent to measuring the area between the
two distribution curves because the area of each segment is the
absolute difference between the two curves' likelihoods at that point.
When summed together for all segments, it provides the same measure as
L1-distance."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_geometry
I know it's geeky, but it's pretty damn cool regardless.
Trying to act important?

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Marvin Sebourn
2018-02-02 22:41:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dreamer In Colore
Post by Teresita
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Because it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on the
ground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles the
earth.
So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately wind
down the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?
With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachment
becomes the string to the earth.
.> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make
.> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is
.> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?
.> Good grief, but you're ignorant.
Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)
"I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"
If Duke claimed that the Moon did NOT rotate, then I'd understand that
he was using a reference frame that was rotating, and he'd have a
(astonishingly weak) case. But he asserts the Moon DOES rotate, and a
ball on a string does NOT. And I'm the ignorant one, he says.
I was going to write a little joke here about Euclidean geometry,
non-Euclidean according to Lovecraft, and Weberian geometry. So I
wanted to get my facts straight and I googled "types of geometry".
I'd never even heard of taxicab geometry, and I didn't know if anyone
"Taxicab geometry can be used to assess the differences in discrete
frequency distributions. For example, in RNA splicing positional
distributions of hexamers, which plot the probability of each hexamer
appearing at each given nucleotide near a splice site, can be compared
with L1-distance. Each position distribution can be represented as a
vector where each entry represents the likelihood of the hexamer
starting at a certain nucleotide. A large L1-distance between the two
vectors indicates a significant difference in the nature of the
distributions while a small distance denotes similarly shaped
distributions. This is equivalent to measuring the area between the
two distribution curves because the area of each segment is the
absolute difference between the two curves' likelihoods at that point.
When summed together for all segments, it provides the same measure as
L1-distance."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_geometry
I know it's geeky, but it's pretty damn cool regardless.
Geeky? But definitely good-geeky, Dreamer, though maybe another over the head whooshie for some. Guess who?

Great to to see you here. Always good stuff from you.

Best regards, Marvin

Marvin Sebourn
Post by Dreamer In Colore
--
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306
"If God listened to the prayers of men, all men would quickly have
perished: for they are forever praying for evil against one another."
Epicurus
duke
2018-02-04 22:42:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by Dreamer In Colore
Post by Teresita
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Because it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on the
ground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles the
earth.
So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately wind
down the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?
With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachment
becomes the string to the earth.
.> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make
.> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is
.> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?
.> Good grief, but you're ignorant.
Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)
"I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"
If Duke claimed that the Moon did NOT rotate, then I'd understand that
he was using a reference frame that was rotating, and he'd have a
(astonishingly weak) case. But he asserts the Moon DOES rotate, and a
ball on a string does NOT. And I'm the ignorant one, he says.
I was going to write a little joke here about Euclidean geometry,
non-Euclidean according to Lovecraft, and Weberian geometry. So I
wanted to get my facts straight and I googled "types of geometry".
I'd never even heard of taxicab geometry, and I didn't know if anyone
"Taxicab geometry can be used to assess the differences in discrete
frequency distributions. For example, in RNA splicing positional
distributions of hexamers, which plot the probability of each hexamer
appearing at each given nucleotide near a splice site, can be compared
with L1-distance. Each position distribution can be represented as a
vector where each entry represents the likelihood of the hexamer
starting at a certain nucleotide. A large L1-distance between the two
vectors indicates a significant difference in the nature of the
distributions while a small distance denotes similarly shaped
distributions. This is equivalent to measuring the area between the
two distribution curves because the area of each segment is the
absolute difference between the two curves' likelihoods at that point.
When summed together for all segments, it provides the same measure as
L1-distance."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_geometry
I know it's geeky, but it's pretty damn cool regardless.
Geeky? But definitely good-geeky, Dreamer, though maybe another over the head whooshie for some. Guess who?
Great to to see you here. Always good stuff from you.
Nah, dic is a dead beat from back when..
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Best regards, Marvin
Marvin Sebourn
Post by Dreamer In Colore
--
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306
"If God listened to the prayers of men, all men would quickly have
perished: for they are forever praying for evil against one another."
Epicurus
the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
duke
2018-02-02 19:08:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Because it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on the
ground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles the
earth.
So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately wind
down the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?
With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachment
becomes the string to the earth.
.> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make
.> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is
.> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?
.> Good grief, but you're ignorant.
Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)
"I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"
If Duke claimed that the Moon did NOT rotate, then I'd understand that
he was using a reference frame that was rotating, and he'd have a
(astonishingly weak) case. But he asserts the Moon DOES rotate, and a
ball on a string does NOT. And I'm the ignorant one, he says.
Absolutely. The moon is in synchronous rotation with the earth. That means the
moon's same face is always looking at the earth, but the earth's face looking at
the moon is rotating round and round and round.

Stupid people have a hard time with that one.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Teresita
2018-02-03 01:02:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Absolutely. The moon is in synchronous rotation with the earth. That means the
moon's same face is always looking at the earth, but the earth's face looking at
the moon is rotating round and round and round.
The Earth's rotation is slowing down due to the friction that results
from the moon's tides. This angular momentum is conserved in the radial
distance of the Moon's orbit, which pushes it away. All things being
equal, in a dozen or so billion years the Earth would be tidally locked
on the Moon, but that is not to be, since the sun will go red-giant and
vaporize the Earth before then. I'll miss it. Maybe you'll see it from
your cloud or some shit.
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
Ted
2018-02-03 01:54:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Absolutely. The moon is in synchronous rotation with the earth. That means the
moon's same face is always looking at the earth, but the earth's face looking at
the moon is rotating round and round and round.
The Earth's rotation is slowing down due to the friction that results
from the moon's tides. This angular momentum is conserved in the radial
distance of the Moon's orbit, which pushes it away. All things being
equal, in a dozen or so billion years the Earth would be tidally locked
on the Moon, but that is not to be, since the sun will go red-giant and
vaporize the Earth before then. I'll miss it. Maybe you'll see it from
your cloud or some shit.
That's assuming his religion is true. But in that case, he'll be too deep
in Hell to see anything.
Atlatl Axolotl
2018-02-03 02:06:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Absolutely. The moon is in synchronous rotation with the earth. That means the
moon's same face is always looking at the earth, but the earth's face looking at
the moon is rotating round and round and round.
The Earth's rotation is slowing down due to the friction that results
from the moon's tides. This angular momentum is conserved in the radial
distance of the Moon's orbit, which pushes it away. All things being
equal, in a dozen or so billion years the Earth would be tidally locked
on the Moon, but that is not to be, since the sun will go red-giant and
vaporize the Earth before then. I'll miss it. Maybe you'll see it from
your cloud or some shit.
.> That's assuming his religion is true. But in that case, he'll be too deep
.> in Hell to see anything.

And won't even notice that inconvenient red giant thingie.


AA
Ted
2018-02-03 02:20:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Absolutely. The moon is in synchronous rotation with the earth. That means the
moon's same face is always looking at the earth, but the earth's face looking at
the moon is rotating round and round and round.
The Earth's rotation is slowing down due to the friction that results
from the moon's tides. This angular momentum is conserved in the radial
distance of the Moon's orbit, which pushes it away. All things being
equal, in a dozen or so billion years the Earth would be tidally locked
on the Moon, but that is not to be, since the sun will go red-giant and
vaporize the Earth before then. I'll miss it. Maybe you'll see it from
your cloud or some shit.
.> That's assuming his religion is true. But in that case, he'll be too deep
.> in Hell to see anything.
And won't even notice that inconvenient red giant thingie.
AA
Or he'll call it something else. Like the ghosts in CS Lewis's "The Great
Divorce", Duke's head will still be firmly embedded in his ass.
Atlatl Axolotl
2018-02-03 02:40:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Absolutely. The moon is in synchronous rotation with the earth. That means the
moon's same face is always looking at the earth, but the earth's face looking at
the moon is rotating round and round and round.
The Earth's rotation is slowing down due to the friction that results
from the moon's tides. This angular momentum is conserved in the radial
distance of the Moon's orbit, which pushes it away. All things being
equal, in a dozen or so billion years the Earth would be tidally locked
on the Moon, but that is not to be, since the sun will go red-giant and
vaporize the Earth before then. I'll miss it. Maybe you'll see it from
your cloud or some shit.
.> > .> That's assuming his religion is true. But in that case, he'll be too deep
.> > .> in Hell to see anything.
.> > And won't even notice that inconvenient red giant thingie.
AA
.> Or he'll call it something else. Like the ghosts in CS Lewis's "The Great
.> Divorce", Duke's head will still be firmly embedded in his ass.

I had not read -- or even heard of -- that one. Any good?


AA
duke
2018-02-04 20:33:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Absolutely. The moon is in synchronous rotation with the earth. That means the
moon's same face is always looking at the earth, but the earth's face looking at
the moon is rotating round and round and round.
The Earth's rotation is slowing down due to the friction that results
from the moon's tides. This angular momentum is conserved in the radial
distance of the Moon's orbit, which pushes it away. All things being
equal, in a dozen or so billion years the Earth would be tidally locked
on the Moon, but that is not to be, since the sun will go red-giant and
vaporize the Earth before then. I'll miss it. Maybe you'll see it from
your cloud or some shit.
Gee, where are your plagiarizing attributes???

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Teresita
2018-02-04 21:09:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Absolutely. The moon is in synchronous rotation with the earth. That means the
moon's same face is always looking at the earth, but the earth's face looking at
the moon is rotating round and round and round.
The Earth's rotation is slowing down due to the friction that results
from the moon's tides. This angular momentum is conserved in the radial
distance of the Moon's orbit, which pushes it away. All things being
equal, in a dozen or so billion years the Earth would be tidally locked
on the Moon, but that is not to be, since the sun will go red-giant and
vaporize the Earth before then. I'll miss it. Maybe you'll see it from
your cloud or some shit.
Gee, where are your plagiarizing attributes???
Everything I write is original, every time, unless it isn't, in which
case I will make the attribute and perhaps even a link. Every time.
That you suspect I copied-and-pasted it from somewhere is a compliment,
actually, but it is also a case of a liar assuming that everyone he lies
to is also a liar.
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
TT Liams
2018-02-04 22:16:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
IOn Fri, 02 Feb 2018 17:02:57 -0800, Teresita
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Absolutely. The moon is in synchronous rotation with the
earth. That means the
Post by Teresita
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
moon's same face is always looking at the earth, but the
earth's face looking at
Post by Teresita
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
the moon is rotating round and round and round.
The Earth's rotation is slowing down due to the friction that results
from the moon's tides. This angular momentum is conserved in the radial
distance of the Moon's orbit, which pushes it away. All things being
equal, in a dozen or so billion years the Earth would be tidally locked
on the Moon, but that is not to be, since the sun will go
red-giant and
Post by Teresita
Post by Teresita
vaporize the Earth before then. I'll miss it. Maybe you'll see it from
your cloud or some shit.
Gee, where are your plagiarizing attributes???
Everything I write is original, every time, unless it isn't, in which
case I will make the attribute and perhaps even a link. Every
time.
Post by Teresita
That you suspect I copied-and-pasted it from somewhere is a
compliment,
Post by Teresita
actually, but it is also a case of a liar assuming that everyone he lies
to is also a liar.
Lol Earl is a rumdum liar that can't write so he lies about other ppl
that are better then him lol
duke
2018-02-05 22:23:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Absolutely. The moon is in synchronous rotation with the earth. That means the
moon's same face is always looking at the earth, but the earth's face looking at
the moon is rotating round and round and round.
The Earth's rotation is slowing down due to the friction that results
from the moon's tides. This angular momentum is conserved in the radial
distance of the Moon's orbit, which pushes it away. All things being
equal, in a dozen or so billion years the Earth would be tidally locked
on the Moon, but that is not to be, since the sun will go red-giant and
vaporize the Earth before then. I'll miss it. Maybe you'll see it from
your cloud or some shit.
Gee, where are your plagiarizing attributes???
Everything I write is original, every time, unless it isn't, in which
case I will make the attribute and perhaps even a link. Every time.
That you suspect I copied-and-pasted it from somewhere is a compliment,
actually, but it is also a case of a liar assuming that everyone he lies
to is also a liar.
I don't trust your statements if they don't stand up to scrutiny either based on
my knowledge or my "research".

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Teresita
2018-02-06 01:51:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
I don't trust your statements if they don't stand up to scrutiny either based on
my knowledge or my "research".
It is well that you put the word research in scare quotes.
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
Atlatl Axolotl
2018-02-06 03:27:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
.> > I don't trust your statements if they don't stand up to scrutiny either based on
.> > my knowledge or my "research".
.> It is well that you put the word research in scare quotes.

Sneer quotes.


AA
Post by Teresita
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
duke
2018-02-06 18:42:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 19:27:28 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> > I don't trust your statements if they don't stand up to scrutiny either based on
.> > my knowledge or my "research".
.> It is well that you put the word research in scare quotes.
Sneer quotes.
My facts sneer at you.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
duke
2018-02-06 18:42:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
I don't trust your statements if they don't stand up to scrutiny either based on
my knowledge or my "research".
It is well that you put the word research in scare quotes.
Why are you afraid?

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Teresita
2018-02-06 18:43:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
I don't trust your statements if they don't stand up to scrutiny either based on
my knowledge or my "research".
It is well that you put the word research in scare quotes.
Why are you afraid?
You think scare quotes have something to do with fear. That's a good
one, Duke.
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
duke
2018-02-07 13:43:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
I don't trust your statements if they don't stand up to scrutiny either based on
my knowledge or my "research".
It is well that you put the word research in scare quotes.
Why are you afraid?
You think scare quotes have something to do with fear. That's a good
one, Duke.
Shucks, I thought you were going to do better than that.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****

TT Liams
2018-02-06 23:21:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 05 Feb 2018 17:51:33 -0800, Teresita
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
I don't trust your statements if they don't stand up to scrutiny either based on
my knowledge or my "research".
It is well that you put the word research in scare quotes.
Why are you afraid?
Your afraid of me cause you have the spirit of Satan that all way's
flee's from the spirit of God that is in me.
Atlatl Axolotl
2018-02-02 20:53:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Because it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on the
ground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles the
earth.
So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately wind
down the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?
With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachment
becomes the string to the earth.
.> > .> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make
.> > .> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is
.> > .> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?
.> > .> Good grief, but you're ignorant.
.> > Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)
.> > "I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"
.> If Duke claimed that the Moon did NOT rotate, then I'd understand that
.> he was using a reference frame that was rotating, and he'd have a
.> (astonishingly weak) case. But he asserts the Moon DOES rotate, and a
.> ball on a string does NOT. And I'm the ignorant one, he says.
But if you look at it another way, maybe he's right.

I mean, consider: we all come here to play tetherball with Earl, right.
He's the ball, and we slap him around and around the pole...
and yet his head's not spinning.

OK, the more prosaic explanation is that his head's not spinning
because everything we say about him goes right over his head.
(I'm looking at you, Teresita) . Sort of like neutrinos passing
through lead with zero interactions. So maybe his incomprehension
is why his head's not spinning.

But still, it's a thought.

AA
duke
2018-02-04 22:44:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 2 Feb 2018 12:53:25 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Because it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on the
ground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles the
earth.
So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately wind
down the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?
With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachment
becomes the string to the earth.
.> > .> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make
.> > .> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is
.> > .> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?
.> > .> Good grief, but you're ignorant.
.> > Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)
.> > "I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"
.> If Duke claimed that the Moon did NOT rotate, then I'd understand that
.> he was using a reference frame that was rotating, and he'd have a
.> (astonishingly weak) case. But he asserts the Moon DOES rotate, and a
.> ball on a string does NOT. And I'm the ignorant one, he says.
But if you look at it another way, maybe he's right.
I am right. After all, this ng of clowns is just now finding out the rotation
is an action around a object's cg. Sheeze.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Atlatl Axolotl
2018-02-05 05:50:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Fri, 2 Feb 2018 12:53:25 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Because it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on the
ground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles the
earth.
So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately wind
down the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?
With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachment
becomes the string to the earth.
.> > .> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make
.> > .> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is
.> > .> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?
.> > .> Good grief, but you're ignorant.
.> > Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)
.> > "I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"
.> >.> If Duke claimed that the Moon did NOT rotate, then I'd understand that
.> >.> he was using a reference frame that was rotating, and he'd have a
.> >.> (astonishingly weak) case. But he asserts the Moon DOES rotate, and a
.> >.> ball on a string does NOT. And I'm the ignorant one, he says.
.> >But if you look at it another way, maybe he's right.

Oooh, look what Earl raced to snip out, lest the other see it and snicker.

Even more than usual.


+ But if you look at it another way, maybe he's right.

+ I mean, consider: we all come here to play tetherball with Earl, right.
+ He's the ball, and we slap him around and around the pole...
+ and yet his head's not spinning.

+ OK, the more prosaic explanation is that his head's not spinning
+ because everything we say about him goes right over his head.
+ (I'm looking at you, Teresita) . Sort of like neutrinos passing
+ through lead with zero interactions. So maybe his incomprehension
+ is why his head's not spinning.


AA
Post by duke
I am right. After all, this ng of clowns is just now finding out the rotation
is an action around a object's cg. Sheeze.
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.
*****
Ted
2018-02-05 16:12:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 2 Feb 2018 12:53:25 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Because it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on the
ground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles the
earth.
So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately wind
down the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?
With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachment
becomes the string to the earth.
.> > .> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make
.> > .> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is
.> > .> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?
.> > .> Good grief, but you're ignorant.
.> > Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)
.> > "I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"
.> >.> If Duke claimed that the Moon did NOT rotate, then I'd understand that
.> >.> he was using a reference frame that was rotating, and he'd have a
.> >.> (astonishingly weak) case. But he asserts the Moon DOES rotate, and a
.> >.> ball on a string does NOT. And I'm the ignorant one, he says.
.> >But if you look at it another way, maybe he's right.
Oooh, look what Earl raced to snip out, lest the other see it and snicker.
Even more than usual.
+ But if you look at it another way, maybe he's right.
+ I mean, consider: we all come here to play tetherball with Earl, right.
+ He's the ball, and we slap him around and around the pole...
+ and yet his head's not spinning.
+ OK, the more prosaic explanation is that his head's not spinning
+ because everything we say about him goes right over his head.
+ (I'm looking at you, Teresita) . Sort of like neutrinos passing
+ through lead with zero interactions. So maybe his incomprehension
+ is why his head's not spinning.
AA
And that's exactly the reason. He continually makes an ass of himself
for our amusement, but he believes he's getting the better of us.
duke
2018-02-05 22:24:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 4 Feb 2018 21:50:25 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
On Fri, 2 Feb 2018 12:53:25 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Because it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on the
ground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles the
earth.
So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately wind
down the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?
With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachment
becomes the string to the earth.
.> > .> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make
.> > .> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is
.> > .> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?
.> > .> Good grief, but you're ignorant.
.> > Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)
.> > "I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"
.> >.> If Duke claimed that the Moon did NOT rotate, then I'd understand that
.> >.> he was using a reference frame that was rotating, and he'd have a
.> >.> (astonishingly weak) case. But he asserts the Moon DOES rotate, and a
.> >.> ball on a string does NOT. And I'm the ignorant one, he says.
.> >But if you look at it another way, maybe he's right.
Oooh, look what Earl raced to snip out, lest the other see it and snicker.
Even more than usual.
+ But if you look at it another way, maybe he's right.
+ I mean, consider: we all come here to play tetherball with Earl, right.
+ He's the ball, and we slap him around and around the pole...
+ and yet his head's not spinning.
+ OK, the more prosaic explanation is that his head's not spinning
+ because everything we say about him goes right over his head.
+ (I'm looking at you, Teresita) . Sort of like neutrinos passing
+ through lead with zero interactions. So maybe his incomprehension
+ is why his head's not spinning.
I stand in truth. Besides, you're too dumb to understand rotation.


the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
duke
2018-02-02 19:05:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 12:37:25 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Because it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on the
ground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles the
earth.
So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately wind
down the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?
With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachment
becomes the string to the earth.
.> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make
.> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is
.> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?
.> Good grief, but you're ignorant.
Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)
"I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"
Let me guess. You think the moon string is
just flapping in the breeze on the earth end.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
. Let me guess. You think the moon string is
just flapping in the breeze on the earth end.
You sure took a big bite on that one.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Tim
2018-02-02 19:13:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 12:37:25 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Because it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on the
ground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles the
earth.
So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately wind
down the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?
With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachment
becomes the string to the earth.
.> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make
.> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is
.> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?
.> Good grief, but you're ignorant.
Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)
"I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"
Let me guess. You think the moon string is
just flapping in the breeze on the earth end.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
. Let me guess. You think the moon string is
just flapping in the breeze on the earth end.
You sure took a big bite on that one.
When don't you take big bites, you fat bastard?
Ted
2018-02-03 00:27:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by duke
On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 12:37:25 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Because it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on the
ground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles the
earth.
So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately wind
down the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?
With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachment
becomes the string to the earth.
.> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make
.> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is
.> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?
.> Good grief, but you're ignorant.
Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)
"I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"
Let me guess. You think the moon string is
just flapping in the breeze on the earth end.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
. Let me guess. You think the moon string is
just flapping in the breeze on the earth end.
You sure took a big bite on that one.
When don't you take big bites, you fat bastard?
He needs a shovel to maintain that mountain of lard.
duke
2018-02-04 20:34:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by duke
On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 12:37:25 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Because it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on the
ground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles the
earth.
So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately wind
down the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?
With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachment
becomes the string to the earth.
.> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make
.> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is
.> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?
.> Good grief, but you're ignorant.
Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)
"I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"
Let me guess. You think the moon string is
just flapping in the breeze on the earth end.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
. Let me guess. You think the moon string is
just flapping in the breeze on the earth end.
You sure took a big bite on that one.
When don't you take big bites, you fat bastard?
You still thing the ball is rotating. How ignorant.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
TT Liams
2018-02-04 22:17:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 12:37:25 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 18:05:45 -0800, Teresita
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 17:56:13 -0800,
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Because it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on the
ground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles the
earth.
So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately wind
down the string and crash into the Earth, since you
affirm it is rotating?
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachment
becomes the string to the earth.
.> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make
.> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is
.> >attached to the string always faces the person who is
spinning it?
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> Good grief, but you're ignorant.
Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)
"I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"
Let me guess. You think the moon string is
just flapping in the breeze on the earth end.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
. Let me guess. You think the moon string is
just flapping in the breeze on the earth end.
You sure took a big bite on that one.
When don't you take big bites, you fat bastard?
You still thing the ball is rotating. How ignorant.
Duke's real name's Earl & my cousin know's him & say's he's treasurer
of Knight's of Columbus but no one sit's by him cause he stink's to
bad lol.
Tim
2018-02-04 23:54:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 12:37:25 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Because it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on the
ground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles the
earth.
So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately wind
down the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?
With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachment
becomes the string to the earth.
.> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make
.> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is
.> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?
.> Good grief, but you're ignorant.
Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)
"I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"
Let me guess. You think the moon string is
just flapping in the breeze on the earth end.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
. Let me guess. You think the moon string is
just flapping in the breeze on the earth end.
You sure took a big bite on that one.
When don't you take big bites, you fat bastard?
You still thing the ball is rotating.
You still can't write a sentence, moron.
Post by duke
How ignorant.
You sure are, dummy.
Ted
2018-02-05 16:16:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 12:37:25 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Because it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on the
ground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles the
earth.
So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately wind
down the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?
With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachment
becomes the string to the earth.
.> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make
.> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is
.> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?
.> Good grief, but you're ignorant.
Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)
"I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"
Let me guess. You think the moon string is
just flapping in the breeze on the earth end.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
. Let me guess. You think the moon string is
just flapping in the breeze on the earth end.
You sure took a big bite on that one.
When don't you take big bites, you fat bastard?
You still thing the ball is rotating.
You still can't write a sentence, moron.
Post by duke
How ignorant.
You sure are, dummy.
Here's one of Duke's latest: 'Now come you and see ducked "P".'

What that means is anybody's guess. :)
Atlatl Axolotl
2018-02-05 18:32:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 12:37:25 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Because it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you pulling the ball on the
ground. The moon, sans string, is under independent rotation as it circles the
earth.
So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately wind
down the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?
With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachment
becomes the string to the earth.
.> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make
.> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is
.> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?
.> Good grief, but you're ignorant.
Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)
"I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"
Let me guess. You think the moon string is
just flapping in the breeze on the earth end.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
. Let me guess. You think the moon string is
just flapping in the breeze on the earth end.
You sure took a big bite on that one.
When don't you take big bites, you fat bastard?
You still thing the ball is rotating.
You still can't write a sentence, moron.
Post by duke
How ignorant.
You sure are, dummy.
.> Here's one of Duke's latest: 'Now come you and see ducked "P".'
.> What that means is anybody's guess. :)

We need that linguist from "Arrival".


(for anyone interested, the short story that was based on
was far far better than the movie)


AA
Ted
2018-02-05 22:33:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Tim
Post by duke
Post by Tim
Post by duke
On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 12:37:25 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
Because it's not rotating about it's cg unless maybe you
pulling the ball on the
ground. The moon, sans string, is under independent
rotation as it circles the
earth.
So if we attached a string to the moon, would it then immediately wind
down the string and crash into the Earth, since you affirm it is rotating?
With the same face of the moon always facing the earth, the critical attachment
becomes the string to the earth.
.> >If the same face of the Moon always faces the Earth, how does that make
.> >it different from a ball on a string, when the point where the ball is
.> >attached to the string always faces the person who is spinning it?
.> Good grief, but you're ignorant.
Translating that from Earlspeak (why do I suddenly feel like Garrett Morris?)
"I have no answer for that. So may I interest you in an insult instead?"
Let me guess. You think the moon string is
just flapping in the breeze on the earth end.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
. Let me guess. You think the moon string is
just flapping in the breeze on the earth end.
You sure took a big bite on that one.
When don't you take big bites, you fat bastard?
You still thing the ball is rotating.
You still can't write a sentence, moron.
Post by duke
How ignorant.
You sure are, dummy.
.> Here's one of Duke's latest: 'Now come you and see ducked "P".'
.> What that means is anybody's guess. :)
We need that linguist from "Arrival".
(for anyone interested, the short story that was based on
was far far better than the movie)
AA
Ah, I googled that and plan to buy the book.
Atlatl Axolotl
2018-01-28 23:16:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
If the string breaks and the ball flies off on the tangent, where is the
rotation them. Would it start spinning at the break?
If the Earth suddenly disappeared, would the moon start (or stop) spinning?
,> Conservation of energy. It continues to rotate around it's own cg which it was
,> doing before the earth disappeared.

Well, that's only off by a quarter of a million miles.

AA
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.
*****
duke
2018-01-30 23:28:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 15:16:44 -0800 (PST), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Teresita
Post by duke
If the string breaks and the ball flies off on the tangent, where is the
rotation them. Would it start spinning at the break?
If the Earth suddenly disappeared, would the moon start (or stop) spinning?
,> Conservation of energy. It continues to rotate around it's own cg which it was
,> doing before the earth disappeared.
Well, that's only off by a quarter of a million miles.
That's why I told you that the moon would continue to rotate about it's cg as it
flew off on a tangent when the earth disappeared.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Peter Pan
2018-01-26 03:23:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
A ball on a string has none.
Then the moon must not rotate either, right?
Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.
You are 100% false. The same side of the moon always
faces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!
If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions of years. And
guess what - no strings attached.
And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.
If you were an engineer, you would get it.
A ball on a string doesn't rotate. No rotation vectors.
If the string breaks and the ball flies off on the tangent, where is the
rotation them. Would it start spinning at the break? Conservation of energy
and all that.
The ball would continue spinning as it flies off
tangentially, of course. Conservation of angular
momentum, and all that.

Here is where you are fucked up:
If the ball didn't rotate, that means the same side of
the ball would face due north, always, no matter how fast
you spin it. That would wrap the ball up in the string
and it would smack your empty noggin.

If you want a simple experiment that you can do at home
to demonstrate this, i will give you one.
TT Liams
2018-01-27 02:50:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 03:06:13 +0800, Peter Pan
Post by Peter Pan
On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 05:45:36 -0800, Teresita
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big
rotation vector, north
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Peter Pan
Post by Teresita
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
Post by Peter Pan
A ball on a string has none.
Then the moon must not rotate either, right?
Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.
You are 100% false. The same side of the moon always
faces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!
If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many
millions of years. And
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
guess what - no strings attached.
And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.
If you were an engineer, you would get it.
A ball on a string doesn't rotate. No rotation vectors.
If the string breaks and the ball flies off on the tangent, where is the
rotation them. Would it start spinning at the break?
Conservation of energy
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
and all that.
The ball would continue spinning as it flies off
tangentially, of course. Conservation of angular
momentum, and all that.
If the ball didn't rotate, that means the same side of
the ball would face due north, always, no matter how fast
you spin it. That would wrap the ball up in the string
and it would smack your empty noggin.
If you want a simple experiment that you can do at home
to demonstrate this, i will give you one.
Lol I want to watch Duke hit his self in the head cause he's a rumdum
lol.
duke
2018-01-28 23:13:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
A ball on a string has none.
Then the moon must not rotate either, right?
Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.
You are 100% false. The same side of the moon always
faces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!
If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions of years. And
guess what - no strings attached.
And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.
If you were an engineer, you would get it.
A ball on a string doesn't rotate. No rotation vectors.
If the string breaks and the ball flies off on the tangent, where is the
rotation them. Would it start spinning at the break? Conservation of energy
and all that.
The ball would continue spinning as it flies off
tangentially, of course. Conservation of angular
momentum, and all that.
Teresita doesn't understand that.
I didn't. The moon is rotating and has been in independent rotation for million
of years. Tidal lock keeps the same face looking at the earth.
Post by Peter Pan
If the ball didn't rotate, that means the same side of
the ball would face due north, always, no matter how fast
you spin it. That would wrap the ball up in the string
and it would smack your empty noggin.
You fool. The ball's hanging on for dear life at the end of the string. This
is different than the moon which has independent rotation without a string.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Peter Pan
2018-01-29 22:25:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
A ball on a string has none.
Then the moon must not rotate either, right?
Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.
You are 100% false. The same side of the moon always
faces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!
If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions of years. And
guess what - no strings attached.
And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.
If you were an engineer, you would get it.
A ball on a string doesn't rotate. No rotation vectors.
If the string breaks and the ball flies off on the tangent, where is the
rotation them. Would it start spinning at the break? Conservation of energy
and all that.
The ball would continue spinning as it flies off
tangentially, of course. Conservation of angular
momentum, and all that.
Teresita doesn't understand that.
Teresita clearly understands that. You don't.
Post by duke
I didn't. The moon is rotating and has been in independent rotation for million
of years. Tidal lock keeps the same face looking at the earth.
Is the moon "in independent rotation", or is it in tidal
lock? Those 2 things are mutually exclusive.

The moon's rotation is dependent on its period of
revolution. It doesn't rotate independently of that.
Just like the ball on a string.
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
If the ball didn't rotate, that means the same side of
the ball would face due north, always, no matter how fast
you spin it. That would wrap the ball up in the string
and it would smack your empty noggin.
You fool. The ball's hanging on for dear life at the end of the string. This
is different than the moon which has independent rotation without a string.
So? Their motions are the same. One rotation per
revolution.

You don't understand any of this, that's why you can't
explain it.

LOL. Your a rumdum.
Ted
2018-01-30 05:04:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
A ball on a string has none.
Then the moon must not rotate either, right?
Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.
You are 100% false. The same side of the moon always
faces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!
If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions of years. And
guess what - no strings attached.
And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.
If you were an engineer, you would get it.
A ball on a string doesn't rotate. No rotation vectors.
If the string breaks and the ball flies off on the tangent, where is the
rotation them. Would it start spinning at the break? Conservation of energy
and all that.
The ball would continue spinning as it flies off
tangentially, of course. Conservation of angular
momentum, and all that.
Teresita doesn't understand that.
Teresita clearly understands that. You don't.
Post by duke
I didn't. The moon is rotating and has been in independent rotation for million
of years. Tidal lock keeps the same face looking at the earth.
Is the moon "in independent rotation", or is it in tidal
lock? Those 2 things are mutually exclusive.
The moon's rotation is dependent on its period of
revolution. It doesn't rotate independently of that.
Just like the ball on a string.
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
If the ball didn't rotate, that means the same side of
the ball would face due north, always, no matter how fast
you spin it. That would wrap the ball up in the string
and it would smack your empty noggin.
You fool. The ball's hanging on for dear life at the end of the string. This
is different than the moon which has independent rotation without a string.
So? Their motions are the same. One rotation per
revolution.
You don't understand any of this, that's why you can't
explain it.
LOL. Your a rumdum.
LOL! Yep.
duke
2018-01-30 23:36:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
A ball on a string has none.
Then the moon must not rotate either, right?
Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.
You are 100% false. The same side of the moon always
faces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!
If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions of years. And
guess what - no strings attached.
And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.
If you were an engineer, you would get it.
A ball on a string doesn't rotate. No rotation vectors.
If the string breaks and the ball flies off on the tangent, where is the
rotation them. Would it start spinning at the break? Conservation of energy
and all that.
The ball would continue spinning as it flies off
tangentially, of course. Conservation of angular
momentum, and all that.
Teresita doesn't understand that.
Teresita clearly understands that. You don't.
Post by duke
I didn't. The moon is rotating and has been in independent rotation for million
of years. Tidal lock keeps the same face looking at the earth.
Is the moon "in independent rotation", or is it in tidal
lock? Those 2 things are mutually exclusive.
The moon's rotation is dependent on its period of
revolution. It doesn't rotate independently of that.
Just like the ball on a string.
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
If the ball didn't rotate, that means the same side of
the ball would face due north, always, no matter how fast
you spin it. That would wrap the ball up in the string
and it would smack your empty noggin.
You fool. The ball's hanging on for dear life at the end of the string. This
is different than the moon which has independent rotation without a string.
So? Their motions are the same. One rotation per
revolution.
You don't understand any of this, that's why you can't
explain it.
LOL. Your a rumdum.
LOL! Yep.
And the queen of jerkoffs, one fairy gman, speaks up and shows his ass..

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Marvin Sebourn
2018-01-31 02:17:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
A ball on a string has none.
Then the moon must not rotate either, right?
Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.
You are 100% false. The same side of the moon always
faces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!
If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions of years. And
guess what - no strings attached.
And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.
If you were an engineer, you would get it.
A ball on a string doesn't rotate. No rotation vectors.
If the string breaks and the ball flies off on the tangent, where is the
rotation them. Would it start spinning at the break? Conservation of energy
and all that.
The ball would continue spinning as it flies off
tangentially, of course. Conservation of angular
momentum, and all that.
Teresita doesn't understand that.
Teresita clearly understands that. You don't.
Post by duke
I didn't. The moon is rotating and has been in independent rotation for million
of years. Tidal lock keeps the same face looking at the earth.
Is the moon "in independent rotation", or is it in tidal
lock? Those 2 things are mutually exclusive.
The moon's rotation is dependent on its period of
revolution. It doesn't rotate independently of that.
Just like the ball on a string.
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
If the ball didn't rotate, that means the same side of
the ball would face due north, always, no matter how fast
you spin it. That would wrap the ball up in the string
and it would smack your empty noggin.
You fool. The ball's hanging on for dear life at the end of the string. This
is different than the moon which has independent rotation without a string.
So? Their motions are the same. One rotation per
revolution.
You don't understand any of this, that's why you can't
explain it.
LOL. Your a rumdum.
LOL! Yep.
And the queen of jerkoffs, one fairy gman, speaks up and shows his ass..
Ugly Dukeling-remember my earlier-mentioned admonition to you, as in Exodus 20:17: "...Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's servant, male or female, or covet your neighbor's ass".

Marvin Sebourn
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.
*****
Ted
2018-01-31 03:10:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Marvin Sebourn
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
A ball on a string has none.
Then the moon must not rotate either, right?
Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.
You are 100% false. The same side of the moon always
faces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!
If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions of years. And
guess what - no strings attached.
And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.
If you were an engineer, you would get it.
A ball on a string doesn't rotate. No rotation vectors.
If the string breaks and the ball flies off on the tangent, where is the
rotation them. Would it start spinning at the break? Conservation of energy
and all that.
The ball would continue spinning as it flies off
tangentially, of course. Conservation of angular
momentum, and all that.
Teresita doesn't understand that.
Teresita clearly understands that. You don't.
Post by duke
I didn't. The moon is rotating and has been in independent rotation for million
of years. Tidal lock keeps the same face looking at the earth.
Is the moon "in independent rotation", or is it in tidal
lock? Those 2 things are mutually exclusive.
The moon's rotation is dependent on its period of
revolution. It doesn't rotate independently of that.
Just like the ball on a string.
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
If the ball didn't rotate, that means the same side of
the ball would face due north, always, no matter how fast
you spin it. That would wrap the ball up in the string
and it would smack your empty noggin.
You fool. The ball's hanging on for dear life at the end of the string. This
is different than the moon which has independent rotation without a string.
So? Their motions are the same. One rotation per
revolution.
You don't understand any of this, that's why you can't
explain it.
LOL. Your a rumdum.
LOL! Yep.
And the queen of jerkoffs, one fairy gman, speaks up and shows his ass..
Ugly Dukeling-remember my earlier-mentioned admonition to you, as in
Exodus 20:17: "...Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's servant, male or
female, or covet your neighbor's ass".
Marvin Sebourn
LOL. :)
Ted
2018-01-31 02:26:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
A ball on a string has none.
Then the moon must not rotate either, right?
Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.
You are 100% false. The same side of the moon always
faces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!
If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions of years. And
guess what - no strings attached.
And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.
If you were an engineer, you would get it.
A ball on a string doesn't rotate. No rotation vectors.
If the string breaks and the ball flies off on the tangent, where is the
rotation them. Would it start spinning at the break? Conservation of energy
and all that.
The ball would continue spinning as it flies off
tangentially, of course. Conservation of angular
momentum, and all that.
Teresita doesn't understand that.
Teresita clearly understands that. You don't.
Post by duke
I didn't. The moon is rotating and has been in independent rotation for million
of years. Tidal lock keeps the same face looking at the earth.
Is the moon "in independent rotation", or is it in tidal
lock? Those 2 things are mutually exclusive.
The moon's rotation is dependent on its period of
revolution. It doesn't rotate independently of that.
Just like the ball on a string.
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
If the ball didn't rotate, that means the same side of
the ball would face due north, always, no matter how fast
you spin it. That would wrap the ball up in the string
and it would smack your empty noggin.
You fool. The ball's hanging on for dear life at the end of the string. This
is different than the moon which has independent rotation without a string.
So? Their motions are the same. One rotation per
revolution.
You don't understand any of this, that's why you can't
explain it.
LOL. Your a rumdum.
LOL! Yep.
And the queen of jerkoffs, one fairy gman, speaks up and shows his ass..
the dukester, American-American
I don't work for the government, Duke. Why do you think so?
duke
2018-01-30 23:35:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
A ball on a string has none.
Then the moon must not rotate either, right?
Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.
You are 100% false. The same side of the moon always
faces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!
If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions of years. And
guess what - no strings attached.
And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.
If you were an engineer, you would get it.
A ball on a string doesn't rotate. No rotation vectors.
If the string breaks and the ball flies off on the tangent, where is the
rotation them. Would it start spinning at the break? Conservation of energy
and all that.
The ball would continue spinning as it flies off
tangentially, of course. Conservation of angular
momentum, and all that.
Teresita doesn't understand that.
Teresita clearly understands that. You don't.
Post by duke
I didn't. The moon is rotating and has been in independent rotation for million
of years. Tidal lock keeps the same face looking at the earth.
Is the moon "in independent rotation", or is it in tidal
lock? Those 2 things are mutually exclusive.
The moon is in independent rotation such that "tidal lock" keeps the face of
rotation always looking at the earth.
Post by Peter Pan
The moon's rotation is dependent on its period of
revolution. It doesn't rotate independently of that.
Just like the ball on a string.
The moon is independently rotating but in tidal lock speed that keeps the same
face pointed at the earth. A ball on a string has no independent rotation. It's
just circling the spinner..
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
If the ball didn't rotate, that means the same side of
the ball would face due north, always, no matter how fast
you spin it. That would wrap the ball up in the string
and it would smack your empty noggin.
You fool. The ball's hanging on for dear life at the end of the string. This
is different than the moon which has independent rotation without a string.
So? Their motions are the same. One rotation per
revolution.
Nope, no independent rotation of the ball. It's looking at the spinner because
the string keeps it that way.
Post by Peter Pan
You don't understand any of this, that's why you can't
explain it.
You're a jerkoff asshole all this time, you fricking village idiot.


the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Marvin Sebourn
2018-01-31 02:11:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Teresita
I can guarantee that Duke's never designed anything.
Certainly not a jet engine, which has a very big rotation vector, north
of 100,000 RPM. The ball and string thing would have tripped him up in
the job interview.
A jet engine has high velocity rotation.
Wow. How many feet per second does it rotate?
Varies by engine. Don't you know anything?
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
A ball on a string has none.
Then the moon must not rotate either, right?
Of course it does. It has rotation independent of it's circling of the earth.
You are 100% false. The same side of the moon always
faces the earth -- didn't you know that? Sheesh!
If course it does. It's in rotation tidal lock for many millions of years. And
guess what - no strings attached.
And, it rotates. Just like the ball on a string.
If you were an engineer, you would get it.
A ball on a string doesn't rotate. No rotation vectors.
If the string breaks and the ball flies off on the tangent, where is the
rotation them. Would it start spinning at the break? Conservation of energy
and all that.
The ball would continue spinning as it flies off
tangentially, of course. Conservation of angular
momentum, and all that.
Teresita doesn't understand that.
Teresita clearly understands that. You don't.
Post by duke
I didn't. The moon is rotating and has been in independent rotation for million
of years. Tidal lock keeps the same face looking at the earth.
Is the moon "in independent rotation", or is it in tidal
lock? Those 2 things are mutually exclusive.
The moon is in independent rotation such that "tidal lock" keeps the face of
rotation always looking at the earth.
Post by Peter Pan
The moon's rotation is dependent on its period of
revolution. It doesn't rotate independently of that.
Just like the ball on a string.
The moon is independently rotating but in tidal lock speed that keeps the same
face pointed at the earth. A ball on a string has no independent rotation. It's
just circling the spinner..
Post by Peter Pan
Post by duke
Post by Peter Pan
If the ball didn't rotate, that means the same side of
the ball would face due north, always, no matter how fast
you spin it. That would wrap the ball up in the string
and it would smack your empty noggin.
You fool. The ball's hanging on for dear life at the end of the string. This
is different than the moon which has independent rotation without a string.
So? Their motions are the same. One rotation per
revolution.
Nope, no independent rotation of the ball. It's looking at the spinner because
the string keeps it that way.
Post by Peter Pan
You don't understand any of this, that's why you can't
explain it.
You're a jerkoff asshole all this time, you fricking village idiot.
A recognition of a very special event-you put the Ugly Dukeling in full melt down mode, with him losing control in an embarrassing manner. Well done!

And Dukeling, you must say ten Hail Dawkins and five Saint Christopher Hitchens. For shame!

Marvin Sebourn
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.
*****
hypatiab7
2018-02-02 16:36:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
FWIW, I don't think this "duke" is really "Duke". Jeez, Earl must have been in his '60s twenty years ago. Although "duke" posts up the same kind of idiocy, I suspect he's probably not the original guy. If the real Duke is still alive, he's probably in some hospice having a nurse shoveling the tapioca into his festering gob.
If he's spending much of his final 20 years on Usenet posting nothing
but "Strawman" and "Buckwheat" and "jdyke" and "Heeheehee" then that is
its own built-in punishment. Very Tao. Even more pathetic is he thinks
his god will extend his pathetic now indefinitely as a reward.
Say what?
I haven't used the buckwheat reference, a black tv star of yesteryear, for over
5 years now. And I can't say that I myself used "strawman" in my own posts.
Maybe I did.
You stopped mentioning the character Buckwheat because lots of people kept pointing out how obviously bigoted your use of the name was. It wasn't the
response you wanted.
Nope, at the start of his 2nd term.
Jdyke" was a expressed interest of her own. And "heeheehee" is a great way > to laugh at the stupidity of others.
No, it wasn't, liar. Jeanne simply said that, if she had been gay, she
wouldn't be ashamed of it.
Put another way, she didn't mind it. So I engaged her.
When you go heeheehee , you sound like a mad scientist in an old science
fiction movie.
It all means you didn't realize the truth.
Only you see it that way, Douche earl.
duke
2018-02-04 22:45:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7
FWIW, I don't think this "duke" is really "Duke". Jeez, Earl must have been in his '60s twenty years ago. Although "duke" posts up the same kind of idiocy, I suspect he's probably not the original guy. If the real Duke is still alive, he's probably in some hospice having a nurse shoveling the tapioca into his festering gob.
If he's spending much of his final 20 years on Usenet posting nothing
but "Strawman" and "Buckwheat" and "jdyke" and "Heeheehee" then that is
its own built-in punishment. Very Tao. Even more pathetic is he thinks
his god will extend his pathetic now indefinitely as a reward.
Say what?
I haven't used the buckwheat reference, a black tv star of yesteryear, for over
5 years now. And I can't say that I myself used "strawman" in my own posts.
Maybe I did.
You stopped mentioning the character Buckwheat because lots of people kept pointing out how obviously bigoted your use of the name was. It wasn't the
response you wanted.
Nope, at the start of his 2nd term.
See how stupid you people are.
Post by hypatiab7
Jdyke" was a expressed interest of her own. And "heeheehee" is a great way > to laugh at the stupidity of others.
No, it wasn't, liar. Jeanne simply said that, if she had been gay, she
wouldn't be ashamed of it.
Put another way, she didn't mind it. So I engaged her.
When you go heeheehee , you sound like a mad scientist in an old science
fiction movie.
It all means you didn't realize the truth.
Only you see it that way, Douche earl.
Nobody cares how you see it. Is she alive or dead?

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
hypatiab7
2018-02-06 23:26:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by hypatiab7
FWIW, I don't think this "duke" is really "Duke". Jeez, Earl must have been in his '60s twenty years ago. Although "duke" posts up the same kind of idiocy, I suspect he's probably not the original guy. If the real Duke is still alive, he's probably in some hospice having a nurse shoveling the tapioca into his festering gob.
If he's spending much of his final 20 years on Usenet posting nothing
but "Strawman" and "Buckwheat" and "jdyke" and "Heeheehee" then that is
its own built-in punishment. Very Tao. Even more pathetic is he thinks
his god will extend his pathetic now indefinitely as a reward.
Say what?
I haven't used the buckwheat reference, a black tv star of yesteryear, for over
5 years now. And I can't say that I myself used "strawman" in my own posts.
Maybe I did.
You stopped mentioning the character Buckwheat because lots of people kept pointing out how obviously bigoted your use of the name was. It wasn't the
response you wanted.
Nope, at the start of his 2nd term.
See how stupid you people are.
Post by hypatiab7
Jdyke" was a expressed interest of her own. And "heeheehee" is a great way > to laugh at the stupidity of others.
No, it wasn't, liar. Jeanne simply said that, if she had been gay, she
wouldn't be ashamed of it.
Put another way, she didn't mind it. So I engaged her.
When you go heeheehee , you sound like a mad scientist in an old science
fiction movie.
It all means you didn't realize the truth.
Only you see it that way, Douche earl.
Nobody cares how you see it. Is she alive or dead?
You only speak for yourself, Douche earl.
Loading...